You know, I hate the attempts at comparing supercouples. The inevitable question of why does ________ get criticized for __________ when the others don't is easily answered -- writing and personal preferences. If you really like a couple, you are more apt to overlook the weaknesses in the writing and find the little things that do work. On the other hand, if you are not a fan of the couple, you aren't looking for the little things and the writing weaknesses dominate everything else.

I'm not a big J&M fan and probably will never be one. And, I freely admit that I found them very difficult to watch from the fall of 2006 through John's "death." But, I also know that it was almost entirely about the writing. They didn't do much of anything for months (John was in a coma, Marlena was rarely on) and after John did wake up, they were quickly dispatched to reading letters and being almost sickeningly sappy. When they had something to do (i.e. tracking down the undead Stefano in Italy in December of 2006), I pretty much enjoyed it. You don't have to love a couple to appreciate a decent storyline. You also don't have to be a fan of a couple to recognize that crappy writing is the problem, not the couple itself -- particularly with long-term characters/couples that have proven their ability to carry strong storylines.

So when one couple is getting criticized about something that others aren't -- look to the writing, because that is almost always the answer to the question.

This is really well said, I agree 100%. It is on the story, unless for whatever reason the story or characters get overexposed.

And on the topic of Sami, I've always liked Sami as a B character, but I don't really feel that she's worthy enough to be at the forefront being the type of character she is. I'm really tired of her because it's the same thing over and over again. I actually feel stressed out when watching her on screen because she's so damn hysterical!